Nadal's Phenomenal, Unexpected, And Wonderful Achievement

Nadal is now number one in the rankings having played for only part of the period being assessed for ranking purposes. He did not play during the period October 2012 - February 2013. As far as I know no player has ever gained the number one ranking by playing part time. To do this he has had to win virtually every tournament he has played and has only failed to reach a final once. I don't see that his achievement will be easy to repeat and it must go down as one of the greatest achievements of a single sports person.

I have edited the headline of this article as there were many objections to my use of the term "part-time". Instead I have used a description suggested by Johnyjeep. I like to please

Correction..he did not play from July 2012-February 2013, bowing out in the second round of Wimbledon in the last week of June 2012, thus missing Canada 1000, Cincinnati 1000, US Open, Shanghai 1000, Paris Bercy 1000, WTF, and Australian Open (not counting 500s, Olympics or 250s). So at the moment he is roughly halfway through his 0 pointers. Other than that I concur wholeheartedly - an astonishing achievement.

http://articles.latimes.com/1989-04-02/sports/sp-1525_1_thomas-muster

His optimism paid off. Just 22 weeks after the accident this gritty player was back in action, reaching the quarter-finals of his first tournament back. Six years later he had fought his way to the top of the world rankings, one of the most physically committed players the sport of tennis had ever seen. It was as if those 22 weeks as a disabled player eventually made him even stronger .

http://www.itennisstore.com/Tennis-Latest-News/Frozen-In-Time--Thomas-Muster-Disabled-By-Drunk-Dr.aspx

How short and fickle is memory?

Talatonian. You are correct about the period Nadal didn't play. But I was referring to the time period missing now that he has re-gained the number one position. ie at this point he has played for 4 months less than the player he has overtaken to become number one.

laverfan. Muster didn't make the number one position by playing part-time!

Gotcha Hawkeye ...sorry. I misread what period you were referring to. Still having taken 1GS and 2 Masters 1000 since Wimbledon with 1GS and 2 Masters 1000 +WTF to come until he has played a full 12 months since his lay off really starkly underlines what a tremendous achievement he has already accomplished (and may still accomplish more). Next time there is a Rafa scare, I hope commentators will bea bit more cautious about writing him off...though of course, sadly there will ultimately be a day

Will be interesting to see what his ranking points will peak at. He should see a high peak coming after either the Australian Open (most likely) or perhaps even after Wimbledon. Will be interesting to see how that compares to other players highest ranking points.

hawkeye wrote:Muster didn't make the number one position by playing part-time!

Career-threatening injury? Part-time? Matter of perception, I presume.

A fan's perception is always tinted.

Fan-tastic achievement for Nadal.

laverfan wrote:

hawkeye wrote:Muster didn't make the number one position by playing part-time!

Career-threatening injury? Part-time? Matter of perception, I presume.

A fan's perception is always tinted.

Fan-tastic achievement for Nadal.

laverfan. It must have been tough for Muster to have an injury and then 6 years later get to number one but that is in no way the same as what Nadal has just done. It's nothing to do with my perception. Nadal has gained enough points to claim the number one position by only playing for roughly two thirds of the time that Djokovic has. To put it another way Djokovic has had 4 months more than Nadal to gather points and he still doesn't have as many as Nadal.

Of course Nadal has done this after returning from an injury but that just makes this extra impressive.

Actually the injury helped I think. It allowed him time off, which is what a lot of the players complain about not having. He recharged his batteries while everyone else wore theirs down and timed the comeback for the clay court season very sensibly.

But only a few would have been able to come back so well.

Muster's achievement (or even James Blake's comeback after breaking his neck) may or may not be more impressive - but it's apples and oranges. Rafa fans will always like the apples best, I guess, others may prefer oranges.

Why is being a few points clear having only played 8 months better than being 1000s of points clear having played a whole year?

Federer has had a few seasons where he could have missed a large chunk and still been number 1. Does he miss out in the this kudos because he didn't get injured?

Rafa's match record is currently a brilliant 61-3. Let's see if he goes on to an 81-4 like Roger or an 82-3 like McEnroe.

Id be interested to see if Rafa goes unbeaten on hard court - If he is fully "there", I'd back maybe Nole, or Roger at Basel, to stop him. If he wins everything he goes something like 84-3, but more importantly finishes the year unbeaten on hard court. Wonder how many players have gone unbeaten in a year on three separate surfaces (having played a major on that surface). He went unbeaten on grass in 2008 (Queens + Wimbledon), unbeaten on clay in 2010 (Monte, Rome, Madrid, Davis Cup and Roland) it would be epic if he finished 2013 unbeaten on Hard. Unlikely, highly so, and he might be beaten in a few hours, but you never know)

Is pretty nauseating for any serious sports fan though.

Cycling is through the mill as ever, athletics has had an awful year, boxing has been shown to be rotten to the core and now Nadal back at number one without any issues.

Only way is up, perhaps.

djlovesyou wrote:Is pretty nauseating for any serious sports fan though.

Cycling is through the mill as ever, athletics has had an awful year, boxing has been shown to be rotten to the core and now Nadal back at number one without any issues.

Only way is up, perhaps.

I have no idea why anyone would want to watch grown ups riding bicycles, boxing is IMO not even a sport so I agree it is pretty rotten and athletics is only really fun to watch every 4 years.

I agree that having Nadal back at the top of tennis shows that for the serious sports fan the only way is up  And Federer is back playing this week too

HM Murdoch wrote:Why is being a few points clear having only played 8 months better than being 1000s of points clear having played a whole year?

Federer has had a few seasons where he could have missed a large chunk and still been number 1. Does he miss out in the this kudos because he didn't get injured?

Because it's more difficult to be the leader when you've given everyone else a 4 month head start...

That would be interesting if Federer could have been number one at some point with 4 months deducted from his calendar. What year do you reckon he had such a big lead and what 4 months could he have afforded to do without?

And why is Nadal being back at the top nauseating? Adrian Peterson came back from a torn ACL to win the NFL equivalent of the Player of the season. That was awe-inspiring, Chris Froome, the kid from Kenya who spent his holidays living in a small shack training won the TdF....

I agree with JHM, I think the sabbatical did him a world of good. Remembering that he wasn't injured as such, it gave his knees time to heal, but also helped him get over any niggles he may have had. Last night I watched Richie McCaw come back from his own sabbatical to play like Superman in New Zealand's victory over South Africa. There is something in taking time off, although it obviously doesn't work for everybody.

Not just physical r & r, kr, I think mentally a lot of players, even the top ones, struggle with the week in/week out grind (some of the fans, too!). I've no doubt Rafa's prolonged layoff allowed him recharge his mental batteries as well.

hawkeye wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:Why is being a few points clear having only played 8 months better than being 1000s of points clear having played a whole year?

Federer has had a few seasons where he could have missed a large chunk and still been number 1. Does he miss out in the this kudos because he didn't get injured?

Because it's more difficult to be the leader when you've given everyone else a 4 month head start...

That would be interesting if Federer could have been number one at some point with 4 months deducted from his calendar. What year do you reckon he had such a big lead and what 4 months could he have afforded to do without?

2005 season, 2006 season and maybe even 2007 season

Froome isn't the best example kr...

LS - his Joburg is five minutes away from my cricket club, and he seems a nice enough guy. So I try name-drop anytime Cycling is mentioned!

Most seem like nice guys and name dropping cyclists is never the best idea in this subject! :P

Haha, I just put his performances down to growing up at altitude, LS... His girlfriend is also nice...

You do get around, kudos to ya!

No comment...

hawkeye wrote:Because it's more difficult to be the leader when you've given everyone else a 4 month head start.

Let's add some proper context here.

Rafa's record from his return in February to US Open is 61-3. He has earned 11,015 ranking points that time.

Novak's record over the exact same period on 2011 was 59-2 and 11,070 ranking points.

So Rafa's performance, whilst brilliant, is not unprecedented even in very recent history.

He's had an astounding season but it's certainly not "one of the greatest achievements of a single sports person". That's getting a bit carried away!

hawkeye wrote: To put it another way Djokovic has had 4 months more than Nadal to gather points and he still doesn't have as many as Nadal.

Of course Nadal has done this after returning from an injury but that just makes this extra impressive.

So everyone that has played more than Nadal, but has less points than Nadal, and has been a full time player has been less impressive? (This includes anyone ranked #2 to #10,000,000,000,000,000...).  

He scraped his knee against Fognini, was that career threatening too?

It is impressive how he reached the SF of Beijing after taking a break from the tennis court when he got done beating Fognini.  

Is not Nadal a part-timer between matches?

I was sad to see the current part-time world numero-uno not put up a fight against a full-time Djokovic-who-could-not-collect-more-points-in-4-more-months-and-defended-Troicki. I was expecting a third set TB at 100-98.

I am also sad to see that a part-time numero-uno Nadal will not be able to match a full-time McEnroe's 82-3 1984 season.

 LF!

LuvSports! wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:Why is being a few points clear having only played 8 months better than being 1000s of points clear having played a whole year?

Federer has had a few seasons where he could have missed a large chunk and still been number 1. Does he miss out in the this kudos because he didn't get injured?

Because it's more difficult to be the leader when you've given everyone else a 4 month head start...

That would be interesting if Federer could have been number one at some point with 4 months deducted from his calendar. What year do you reckon he had such a big lead and what 4 months could he have afforded to do without?

2005 season, 2006 season and maybe even 2007 season

Being lazy I had hoped that if someone thought that Federer could have been number one by playing part time they would have done the calculations to prove it rather than just say years were it may have happened. Sigh! So I'll just have to do it myself...

I chose to look at the 2006/2007 period and took off Federer's points for the same period that Nadal has missing in 2012/2013. (Post Tokyo 2006 - Post the AO 2007) From the ATP site I calculated that Federer would have had 4,855 points and Nadal would have had 5,405 points. Nadal not Federer would have been number one. Note that the actual ranking points for both players look low this is because at that time players only won 1,000 points for a slam and 500 points for a masters etc. I was going to do the same for 2005 - 2006 but I noticed that the number two player was already playing part time during that period (he suffered a career threatening foot injury in October 2005)

laverfan wrote:So everyone that has played more than Nadal, but has less points than Nadal, and has been a full time player has been less impressive? (This includes anyone ranked #2 to #10,000,000,000,000,000...).  

 Well yes players that have less points than Nadal have been less impressive! They would still have been less impressive even if he had to play full time to overtake them. But he didn't he only had to play part time.

laverfan wrote:

He scraped his knee against Fognini, was that career threatening too?

Um well hopefully not. But what has that got to do with Nadal playing part time and reaching number one?

laverfan wrote:

It is impressive how he reached the SF of Beijing after taking a break from the tennis court when he got done beating Fognini.

Is not Nadal a part-timer between matches?

I was sad to see the current part-time world numero-uno not put up a fight against a full-time Djokovic-who-could-not-collect-more-points-in-4-more-months-and-defended-Troicki. I was expecting a third set TB at 100-98.

Um  You have completely lost me here. Have you been at the sherry again?

Considering that feds only lost 9 matches and won over 170 matches in 2005-6, it's a pretty accurate shout.
Sorry to upset your worshiping nadal crusade.

The only good thing you can say about Nadal is it must be great to be his fan this season  
Where was this FH and serve at USO NOVAK?
It will be funny when Nadal has the AO in his bag and owns 3/4 slams with barely any challenge again, such a great, unpredictable, ATP season again isn't it hawkeye?

 

Luvsports. Federer is a great player and it was a good "guess" but the figures don't quite add up if you see my last post. As I said I don't think you can use the 2005/6 year as you wouldn't be comparing a part time player with a full time player. You would be comparing two part time players.

ha ha! I take it that you are not impressed that Nadal has reached the number one position by playing part-time?

Josiah Maiestas wrote:The only good thing you can say about Nadal is it must be great to be his fan this season  
Where was this FH and serve at USO NOVAK?
It will be funny when Nadal has the AO in his bag and owns 3/4 slams with barely any challenge again, such a great, unpredictable, ATP season again isn't it hawkeye?

 

TBH I preferred the good old days when Nadal was challenging Federer. What's that book about tennis called? "a handful of summers". That's all it is really and a tennis career is over in the blink of an eye. If Djokovic hadn't put together his amazing 2011 it would all have started to be boring. As it is I'm still enjoying the fight that Djokovic is putting up.

This "part time" thing you keep talking about is pretty meaningless.

As shown above, Novak actually earned a few more points over the same period in 2011.

You've yet to explain why Rafa's achievement is greater.

Either:
A) Novak could also have been number 1 on that period alone, in which case it's only being viewed as a lesser achievement because he played a full year. Which is daft.

B) Novak could not have been number 1 on that period alone, in which case his rivals were playing better than Rafa's rivals are. And elevating Rafa for having weaker rivals is daft.

HM Murdoch wrote:This "part time" thing you keep talking about is pretty meaningless.

As shown above, Novak actually earned a few more points over the same period in 2011.

You've yet to explain why Rafa's achievement is greater.

No-one can explain the impossible

I think what HE need to do to really make her point is use the phrase 'part-time' more often.

Rafa (before Bejing) has played 64 matches this year, Djoko 61, Fed 47, Murray 51
Rafa (before Bejing) has played 13 tournies this year, Djoko 13, Fed 13, Murray 12

HE's definition of 'part-time' seems to be on a par with her definition of 'cruel'

So basically the only way anyone can do what rafa did is get injured and come back and dominate?
Well this is just pointless.

Good points HM

lol.

JuliousHMarx. Ha ha! Nadal has only played for part of the time that could have been used to win ranking points hence he is (like it or not) a part time player. Incidentally as you must know the ranking system is calculated using the last 12 months of play and not just this calendar year so throwing in the amount of matches and tournaments Djokovic has played this calendar year for comparison is deceptive (not deliberately so I'm sure... )

Interesting figures about the relatively few matches Federer and Murray have played this year. Like many part-time workers Nadal has fitted more work into his reduced working hours than some full time workers. This shows the problems the very top players have with a schedule. Where the mere mortals don't tire themselves out by sticking to the strict ATP rules about the number of tournaments entered tennis gods are always at risk of playing too much if they stick to the rules. The tennis gods are forced to play more or less the maximum number of matches possible. Shouldn't this be taken into account? Should the amount of matches played determine the number of tournaments a player is required to play? For example should Nadal and Djokovic get a free pass to skip Paris if they wish? After all they have been shouldering more than their fair share of work... even if one of them has only been working part-time

LuvSports! wrote:So basically the only way anyone can do what rafa did is get injured and come back and dominate?
Well this is just pointless.

You make it sound easy but I reckon it could be a little tricky.... Although maybe Murray is in the process of attempting it

Just ignore Murdoch's point then...

hawkeye wrote:The tennis gods...

 
I think I see now where the problem lies.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:This "part time" thing you keep talking about is pretty meaningless.

As shown above, Novak actually earned a few more points over the same period in 2011.

You've yet to explain why Rafa's achievement is greater.

No-one can explain the impossible

I think what HE need to do to really make her point is use the phrase 'part-time' more often.

Rafa (before Bejing) has played 64 matches this year, Djoko 61, Fed 47, Murray 51
Rafa (before Bejing) has played 13 tournies this year, Djoko 13, Fed 13, Murray 12

HE's definition of 'part-time' seems to be on a par with her definition of 'cruel'

I was really hoping someone was going to point this out before I got to the bottom. Thanks JHM.

Does the individual who works in an office, who works his 37 hr week in 4 days instead of over 5, class as a 'part-timer'. Of course not. They just work their contracted hours in a truncated timescale. Much like Rafa has done this season.

Do I dare read on....

Johnyjeep wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:This "part time" thing you keep talking about is pretty meaningless.

As shown above, Novak actually earned a few more points over the same period in 2011.

You've yet to explain why Rafa's achievement is greater.

No-one can explain the impossible

I think what HE need to do to really make her point is use the phrase 'part-time' more often.

Rafa (before Bejing) has played 64 matches this year, Djoko 61, Fed 47, Murray 51
Rafa (before Bejing) has played 13 tournies this year, Djoko 13, Fed 13, Murray 12

HE's definition of 'part-time' seems to be on a par with her definition of 'cruel'

I was really hoping someone was going to point this out before I got to the bottom. Thanks JHM.

Does the individual who works in an office, who works his 37 hr week in 4 days instead of over 5, class as a 'part-timer'. Of course not. They just work their contracted hours in a truncated timescale. Much like Rafa has done this season.

Do I dare read on....

Probably not. It's ironic that Rafa's fantastic achievement is somewhat undermined by HE fantastical OP.

hawkeye wrote:JuliousHMarx. Ha ha! Nadal has only played for part of the time that could have been used to win ranking points hence he is (like it or not) a part time player. Incidentally as you must know the ranking system is calculated using the last 12 months of play and not just this calendar year so throwing in the amount of matches and tournaments Djokovic has played this calendar year for comparison is deceptive (not deliberately so I'm sure... )

Interesting figures about the relatively few matches Federer and Murray have played this year. Like many part-time workers Nadal has fitted more work into his reduced working hours than some full time workers. This shows the problems the very top players have with a schedule. Where the mere mortals don't tire themselves out by sticking to the strict ATP rules about the number of tournaments entered tennis gods are always at risk of playing too much if they stick to the rules. The tennis gods are forced to play more or less the maximum number of matches possible. Shouldn't this be taken into account? Should the amount of matches played determine the number of tournaments a player is required to play? For example should Nadal and Djokovic get a free pass to skip Paris if they wish? After all they have been shouldering more than their fair share of work... even if one of them has only been working part-time

I should have stopped (see above!).

Couldn't agree more JHM.

Since I have been to The Closet, I cannot read, am unable to comment either, HE.

Full congratulations to Rafa - a great feat. However, lets put it into context. Last year was his year of pain missing the second half of the season and the first part of this due to injury. Once back on the comeback trail this year has been like a blank canvas for Rafa. Going deep guaranteed buckets of points as he had none to defend so a rich vein of form was always going to see him race up the rankings as others had to fight to defend points - sometimes having to win tournies and still not add any points.

Umm Craig. The clay court season??

1 x Slam, 3 x 1000 Masters and 1 x 500 series, all to defend without the chance of gaining a single point. And then when he had to chance to gain big points at Wimbledon he crashed out in the first round.

The blank canvas only started in August and he stunned everyone - me included - by his American hardcourt season.

It's been a remarkable season for him and he threw something back into the mix again which I think has been good for the game.

Well I did say (in my post) he missed the second half of last season so the blank canvas was the hard court season. Also take into account that Novak's form has dipped this year as did Murray's at that time (compared to last year) and that opened the door right up. Very true though that Rafa's run of results have been stunning on hard court but lets keep things is perspective.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Full congratulations to Rafa - a great feat. However, lets put it into context. Last year was his year of pain missing the second half of the season and the first part of this due to injury. Once back on the comeback trail this year has been like a blank canvas for Rafa. Going deep guaranteed buckets of points as he had none to defend so a rich vein of form was always going to see him race up the rankings as others had to fight to defend points - sometimes having to win tournies and still not add any points.

What Nadal has achieved this year has been remarkable. Returning to the tour after a 7/8 month lay off in just 8 months he is top of the rankings. On 606v2 this gets barely grudging acknowledgment and the more likely reaction is to try and play it down (or "put it in context"  ). But to suggest that players who played a full season were disadvantaged and that Nadal has got to the top of the rankings the easy way? Ha ha! I would suggest it was a wind up if it wasn't so funny.

It's only played down now he's done it. Strange that it was played up when the task was still ahead of him. All those points to defend, dropping down the rankings, tough quarter finals, will never play on hard court again, will never beat (name of favorite player again), will never be ranked highly again let alone number one... I could go on.